Skip to main content
Glama

elc-toolkit

by io.engineeringleaders

Start here — what can this MCP server do?

get_started
Read-onlyIdempotent

Call this for a greeting (hi, hello), a connectivity/liveness test, 'what can you do', or any message too general to match a specific tool below. Returns the full menu of real questions this server answers, each mapped to the tool name that answers it, so the next call can go straight to the right tool.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contextYesExplain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): "Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization."

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reportYesThe full human-readable report.
sourceYesCanonical engineeringleaders.io page this answer is derived from.
verdictNoHeadline verdict, when the tool returns one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already signal that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that the tool returns a menu of real questions mapped to tool names, which helps the agent anticipate the response and plan the next call. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the trigger conditions, then states the return value and its usefulness for routing the next tool call.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple one-parameter schema, detailed schema description, output schema, and safety annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent when to call the tool, what it will receive, and how the result should guide subsequent tool selection.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the context parameter is already fully documented with word-count requirements, perspective constraints, and sensitive-data prohibitions. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning, but the schema carries that burden, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: it handles greetings, connectivity tests, 'what can you do' queries, and messages too general for other tools. It also distinguishes itself by explaining that it returns a menu of real questions mapped to tool names, which separates it from the more specific sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: greetings, liveness checks, capability inquiries, and catch-all handling for overly general messages. It implies that if a specific tool matches, that tool should be used instead, though it does not name specific alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All elc-toolkit toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The three domain tools are clearly distinct, but get_started and get_more_tools are near-duplicates: both are described as the greeting/liveness fallback and both return the full menu. An agent would struggle to choose between them, so the set has a real overlap problem.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names follow a readable snake_case verb-first pattern such as assess_, benchmark_, build_, and get_. The only minor deviation is get_started being an idiomatic phrase rather than a verb+object construction, but overall the naming is consistent and easy to parse.

Tool Count4/5

Five tools is a reasonable size for a specialist toolkit and fits the ideal range well. However, two of the five are redundant meta/help tools, so the effective surface is really three domain tools plus duplicated onboarding, making the count slightly less crisp.

Completeness4/5

The domain tools cover launch-readiness assessment, leadership-ratio benchmarking, and partnership business cases without obvious dead ends. The main gap is exact membership/package pricing, which is explicitly delegated to an external Membership Builder server rather than handled here.

Resources